Is the russian bear back?

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by Krypto
lukster, ever been to russia, plenty of active silos guarded still around. Plenty actually and you think the russians will admit the true amount of nukes? And why isn't the US dismantling their nukes from the patriot act

Because START II was ratified which is the only thing pertaining to nuclear disassembly and verification and is subject to bi-lateral verification by both Russian and Americans. START II put the goal level for reductions at 3000 warheads per side divided amongst the strategic triad's of both Russia and the US. But nuclear weapons are expensive to maintain, and Russia actually wants to go below 1000 which is the basis for START III.

The patriot act has nothing to do with nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Yes I have been to Russia, 4 times in the last 2 years - yes I have a nuclear weapons background. I taught a Physics class at the university level dealing specifically with nuclear weapons, war and arms control.

Wolf

[Excel1]

Originally posted by Nilsen
im pretty sure both sides had them

I know

your missing the point I was making

In the scenario of nato folding under a soviet blitzkrieg rolling across western europe..and from a purely military perspective, which side had the most to gain by using tactical nukes on the battlefield?

[Viking]

The Soviet war plans drawn up for an invasion of Western Europe in case of a war with NATO called for the use of chemical and nuclear weapons on day one. Short-medium range tactical nuclear missiles were to be used against NATO marshaling areas and important supply centers. Chemical weapons were to be used indiscriminately by the Red Army from Poland/East Germany and further west.

In a war with NATO the Soviets wouldn't aim to conquer Europe, but to destroy it.

[Excel1]

Very interesting

So much for my conventional weapons to nuclear escalation theory.

I assume that nato would have responded with at least equivalent force from the get go.

It would seem that under that scenario that any disparities in the quantity and quality of the conventional forces of each side wouldn't have had much bearing on the course the war took, let alone the outcome.

[Viking]

Yes it would most likely quickly escalate to a full blown nuclear war. However if it only stayed at the tactical level conventional forces would matter. Europe is big and mountainous, so tactical nukes only do very localized damage. With a force advantage of 10 to 1 over NATO the Soviets would probably have won a European war.

[Excel1]

I'm just hypothesising that the war stayed tactical, and I don’t know if it was ever deployed in Europe, but wasn't the tactical use of the neutron bomb suppose to level the playing field as far as the soviet's numerical advantage of conventional forces was concerned? 25-30 years ago there was a lot of propaganda about it, but as I understood it at the time, the neutron bomb's high intensity radiation and low blast damage properties would have allowed nato to nuke the hell out of an invading Warsaw pact while at the same time keeping collateral damage in western European countries to a minimum.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Viking
The Soviet war plans drawn up for an invasion of Western Europe in case of a war with NATO called for the use of chemical and nuclear weapons on day one. Short-medium range tactical nuclear missiles were to be used against NATO marshaling areas and important supply centers. Chemical weapons were to be used indiscriminately by the Red Army from Poland/East Germany and further west.

In a war with NATO the Soviets wouldn't aim to conquer Europe, but to destroy it.

Are you sure here? With that plan, it's no point in having an army, just nukes. And then get nuked. Defcon 5 on the first day?
AFAIK the USSR plan was offensive (reverse to the iron curtain which only could work inwards), but in case of bad going they had their targets lined up, and that would also have been the case with the USA.
Oddly enough, - in the late nineties, about the same times as you could go to Moscow and sit in a MIG, the old USSR targetplan was on display.
They had Iceland there, - three aiming points on the city of Reykjavík, but none on the US airbase in Keflavík, which is some 45 km away.
So, you do have a point

[Viking]

The Nutron bomb got banned. A weapon that only destroy living things, now that's just not right!  In any case, as early as the 1960's the Soviets started lining the crew compartments of their tanks and other vehicles with lead. Most military combat vehicles in the world are now ABC (NBC to you yanks) sealed, meaning that only the destructive part of a nuke can kill them.

Angus, a tactical nuke has a very low yield; we're talking kilotons, and sometimes less than a kiloton. The blast radius is very limited, and therefore they are only used against specific targets like airbases and such. Radiation is still bad though since most of these weapons are fission devices. Also just because one or both sides are using tactical nukes in Europe does not mean that the USA or USSR would gladly sacrifice their own nations in a full scale nuclear exchange. It would probably end with that though, but it is not Defcon 1 on day one. (Defcon 5 is peacetime Angie )

I remember reading in the 1970's invasion plan for Norway that if the Soviets couldn't take Bodø, my home town, within 3 days they would low-yield nuke it. Also, if the Soviets managed to take it NATO would nuke it. Either way we were screwed.

[Suave]

You talk like those days are behind us.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Viking


I remember reading in the 1970's invasion plan for Norway that if the Soviets couldn't take Bodø, my home town, within 3 days they would low-yield nuke it. Also, if the Soviets managed to take it NATO would nuke it. Either way we were screwed.

Well.. there is really nothing worth having north of Bergen anyways so I would not say that we were screwed.

Some nukes would really solve the problem (the population up there) and free up the beautiful landscape so that the rest of us could finally enjoy it without beeing bothered with the local population

[Viking]

ROFL, you bloody søring!

[Nilsen]

LMAO friggin nordlending

[Angus]

Now I see why people moved from Norway to Iceland and untill this day have benefitted from snatching ladies from other countries for crossbreeding purpouses

Anyway, north up, the Soviets already were in Norway in WW2. They pretty much know how an advance would have to be, - if not through Sweden as well, and that means Finland also, - 3 countries with armies which are designed for defense only. So, on we go:

"Angus, a tactical nuke has a very low yield; we're talking kilotons, and sometimes less than a kiloton. The blast radius is very limited, and therefore they are only used against specific targets like airbases and such. Radiation is still bad though since most of these weapons are fission devices"

I know. Even small enough to be fired from a cannon, and used in a subhunt, etc etc. Sorry that I got mixed up in the defcon number, but I think the point is worth looking into, - how fast does the defcon count, how fast were the Soviets ready to open the countdown in tactical warfare? same goes to the other side of course, - especially in the submarine warfare.

Then as a sidenote...."only" a kilotonne is 100 times as powerful as the grand slam, yet only 5-10% of Hiroshima/Nagasaki blast power. Then we are also into the business of at what depth the detonation occurs.

P.S. Nilsen, are you truly from Sörland? I was around there from Oslo, Kristianssand, Vanse/Lista, and along all the way to Sandnes...many years ago.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Angus


P.S. Nilsen, are you truly from Sörland? I was around there from Oslo, Kristianssand, Vanse/Lista, and along all the way to Sandnes...many years ago.

No not sørlandet, but Østlandet..

Im located between Oslo and Kristiansand... abit closer to Oslo.

[Viking]

Everyone south of Trondheim are søring. You all look the same to me.